The Onslaught of the Liberal Academy
Ilan Wurman
Last Updated: 9/19/08 Section: Editorial
Two years ago, the Claremont Independent laid out its purpose and mission in an editorial aimed toward new students. Often our purpose goes without saying, but sometimes it is important to step back and remind students why we are here and what we are fighting for.
It is especially important that we do so now. We are situated in a unique election cycle which demands vigorous debate, particularly for conservatives. We might end up with a Democratic administration that repackages the damaging liberalism of the 20th century that yielded more government and less liberty. In such a case not all will be lost, at least for us: the subscriptions to conservative publications tend to increase when Democrats are in power.
So for what, exactly, are we here? We are here for more than simply pointing out the lunacy of Obama-worship or the merits of a conservative vote. Our mission extends beyond one mere election: we are here to defend conservatism and the founding principles of American government against the onslaught of liberal academes and administrators. We are here to debunk the myths that 5C professors disseminate in classes such as "History of the United States Right," which focuses, naturally, "on racist movements" and "White Supremacists." And we are here to question and debate the liberal speakers on campus, and to encourage the conservative ones.
We are here to remind Claremont McKenna of her own past greatness. But to echo Reagan, we do not want to turn back to the past, but rather to a past way of looking at the future. We do not look to the fads advocated by our president - serving nonprofits, greenness, every kind of diversity except diversity of thought - but to the real character and deeds of our past alums. These alums - titans of industries far and wide - have offered much to the world by remembering the Claremont McKenna motto: "Civilization prospers with commerce."
We are here to ensure that the worst transgressions against academic freedom, a la Larry Summers and David Horowitz, are not replicated at the Claremont Colleges, and that the administration vigorously defends free speech and guarantees students' rights. We are here to report the dangers of school-sponsored speech codes, like those discussed at multiple "Ban the N-Word" panels last year. When administrators can pick and choose what is said, academic freedom disappears. And we are here to ensure that the administrations at all five colleges vigorously pursue the truth before jumping to conclusions, so conservatives are not smeared by despicable tactics such as fake hate crimes.
The transgressions of the 5C administrations may be more subtle than those CMC witnessed with the Keri Dunn incident five years ago - in which the visiting psychology professor vandalized her own car with racial and sexist epithets, accused her students of the act, and rallied the forces of righteousness against the fictional perpetrators - but they are no less insidious. Just a few months ago the Scripps Dean of Students sent a mass email to the entire Scripps community, both students and faculty, regarding a CMC party-promoting flier, without conferring with the CMC students responsible for the flier. Perhaps had she spoken with the principal organizers of the party - one black student and one female student - the Dean of Students would not have been so quick to label the CMC class of 2010 "racist" and "sexist." During the Dunn debacle, President Gann said that it was important to assume that Dunn was innocent before she was proven guilty; too often at the 5Cs, however, this standard is reversed for the students.
The PC crusade got so out of hand last year, in fact, that FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, even wrote a letter to the 5C administrations reminding them of their obligations to maintain free speech on campus. FIRE described the "chilling effect" of the colleges' attempts to stifle student expression on three separate occasions. Despite FIRE's letter, our campuses have since seen a number of other violations, including CGU's attempted censorship of a video recorded at a public lecture, and Pitzer College's initial refusal to recognize the "Masculinist Coalition" - what should be a legitimate counterpart to feminist clubs on campus.
In this issue, we discuss the seriousness of the 5C crack down on free thought and the importance of the issues that FIRE raises. These kinds of incidents, after all, destroy the very mission of a liberal arts education. Pursuing the truth is no easy task even with all the facts at hand; but certainly with no facts the truth is impossible to discover. We are here to ensure that the PC insanity does not preoccupy our administrators to the point of distraction and to the point of denying reasonable free speech on campus.
More than simply defending conservatism in the classroom, our purpose is to defend the character of CMC. It is not the editorial position of the Claremont Independent that all change is bad; without a doubt, many of the changes CMC is undergoing will benefit us in a number of ways. Having more students means we will be more competitive for the best professors, enroll students of more varied backgrounds, and probably increase the values of our degrees - at least on paper. A stronger emphasis in science might improve our ranking and may better prepare students for encountering science in business or government - at least those students prepared to wake up on Friday mornings. Finally, bringing in students from other colleges and universities as part of the Day Program might add intellectual diversity to CMC.
But what we might lose from these changes could be more valuable. While on paper our degrees might have more value, will our knowledge mirror this increase? If we enroll 1400 students, or even 1200 in the nearer future, we will not be able to develop as close relationships with professors. It may also be harder to get the classes we want, which can already be difficult, with a new influx of students.
Further, if we start de-emphasizing government and economics and start promoting the sciences, what will be our comparative advantage? With limited resources, tipping the balance away from government and economics means we will inevitably invest in them less than we could, and our flagship programs may stagnate. But will the value of our degrees decrease if employers see that Claremont McKenna is not the government- and economics-focused liberal arts college that it once was?
These are the questions that we will continue to ask and debate. Further, we will demand that these questions be asked, and be debated, in the administration with the consultation of the student body: something that continues to be desperately lacking.
So when our individual rights are threatened, or when our campus, mission, and character are threatened, the Claremont Independent will be there. We hope you will join us for the fight.
It is especially important that we do so now. We are situated in a unique election cycle which demands vigorous debate, particularly for conservatives. We might end up with a Democratic administration that repackages the damaging liberalism of the 20th century that yielded more government and less liberty. In such a case not all will be lost, at least for us: the subscriptions to conservative publications tend to increase when Democrats are in power.
So for what, exactly, are we here? We are here for more than simply pointing out the lunacy of Obama-worship or the merits of a conservative vote. Our mission extends beyond one mere election: we are here to defend conservatism and the founding principles of American government against the onslaught of liberal academes and administrators. We are here to debunk the myths that 5C professors disseminate in classes such as "History of the United States Right," which focuses, naturally, "on racist movements" and "White Supremacists." And we are here to question and debate the liberal speakers on campus, and to encourage the conservative ones.
We are here to remind Claremont McKenna of her own past greatness. But to echo Reagan, we do not want to turn back to the past, but rather to a past way of looking at the future. We do not look to the fads advocated by our president - serving nonprofits, greenness, every kind of diversity except diversity of thought - but to the real character and deeds of our past alums. These alums - titans of industries far and wide - have offered much to the world by remembering the Claremont McKenna motto: "Civilization prospers with commerce."
We are here to ensure that the worst transgressions against academic freedom, a la Larry Summers and David Horowitz, are not replicated at the Claremont Colleges, and that the administration vigorously defends free speech and guarantees students' rights. We are here to report the dangers of school-sponsored speech codes, like those discussed at multiple "Ban the N-Word" panels last year. When administrators can pick and choose what is said, academic freedom disappears. And we are here to ensure that the administrations at all five colleges vigorously pursue the truth before jumping to conclusions, so conservatives are not smeared by despicable tactics such as fake hate crimes.
The transgressions of the 5C administrations may be more subtle than those CMC witnessed with the Keri Dunn incident five years ago - in which the visiting psychology professor vandalized her own car with racial and sexist epithets, accused her students of the act, and rallied the forces of righteousness against the fictional perpetrators - but they are no less insidious. Just a few months ago the Scripps Dean of Students sent a mass email to the entire Scripps community, both students and faculty, regarding a CMC party-promoting flier, without conferring with the CMC students responsible for the flier. Perhaps had she spoken with the principal organizers of the party - one black student and one female student - the Dean of Students would not have been so quick to label the CMC class of 2010 "racist" and "sexist." During the Dunn debacle, President Gann said that it was important to assume that Dunn was innocent before she was proven guilty; too often at the 5Cs, however, this standard is reversed for the students.
The PC crusade got so out of hand last year, in fact, that FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, even wrote a letter to the 5C administrations reminding them of their obligations to maintain free speech on campus. FIRE described the "chilling effect" of the colleges' attempts to stifle student expression on three separate occasions. Despite FIRE's letter, our campuses have since seen a number of other violations, including CGU's attempted censorship of a video recorded at a public lecture, and Pitzer College's initial refusal to recognize the "Masculinist Coalition" - what should be a legitimate counterpart to feminist clubs on campus.
In this issue, we discuss the seriousness of the 5C crack down on free thought and the importance of the issues that FIRE raises. These kinds of incidents, after all, destroy the very mission of a liberal arts education. Pursuing the truth is no easy task even with all the facts at hand; but certainly with no facts the truth is impossible to discover. We are here to ensure that the PC insanity does not preoccupy our administrators to the point of distraction and to the point of denying reasonable free speech on campus.
More than simply defending conservatism in the classroom, our purpose is to defend the character of CMC. It is not the editorial position of the Claremont Independent that all change is bad; without a doubt, many of the changes CMC is undergoing will benefit us in a number of ways. Having more students means we will be more competitive for the best professors, enroll students of more varied backgrounds, and probably increase the values of our degrees - at least on paper. A stronger emphasis in science might improve our ranking and may better prepare students for encountering science in business or government - at least those students prepared to wake up on Friday mornings. Finally, bringing in students from other colleges and universities as part of the Day Program might add intellectual diversity to CMC.
But what we might lose from these changes could be more valuable. While on paper our degrees might have more value, will our knowledge mirror this increase? If we enroll 1400 students, or even 1200 in the nearer future, we will not be able to develop as close relationships with professors. It may also be harder to get the classes we want, which can already be difficult, with a new influx of students.
Further, if we start de-emphasizing government and economics and start promoting the sciences, what will be our comparative advantage? With limited resources, tipping the balance away from government and economics means we will inevitably invest in them less than we could, and our flagship programs may stagnate. But will the value of our degrees decrease if employers see that Claremont McKenna is not the government- and economics-focused liberal arts college that it once was?
These are the questions that we will continue to ask and debate. Further, we will demand that these questions be asked, and be debated, in the administration with the consultation of the student body: something that continues to be desperately lacking.
So when our individual rights are threatened, or when our campus, mission, and character are threatened, the Claremont Independent will be there. We hope you will join us for the fight.
Be the first to comment on this story